I'm not advocating for an out and out ban and confiscation. Just like I am not advocating that anyone suspected of experiencing a mental health disorder should be locked away in a psych ward until they are evaluated.

Extreme responses don't help, but no response doesn't do shit either.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

(20-12-2012 12:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'm not advocating for an out and out ban and confiscation. Just like I am not advocating that anyone suspected of experiencing a mental health disorder should be locked away in a psych ward until they are evaluated.

Extreme responses don't help, but no response doesn't do shit either.

I hear ya, Beard, but wasting time and energy on an ineffective response just detratcts from and delays a constructive one.

If Joe Biden's panel comes up with nothing but firearms restrictions, it will have been an utter waste of time; pandering, posturing, and politicking.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(20-12-2012 12:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'm not advocating for an out and out ban and confiscation. Just like I am not advocating that anyone suspected of experiencing a mental health disorder should be locked away in a psych ward until they are evaluated.

Extreme responses don't help, but no response doesn't do shit either.

I hear ya, Beard, but wasting time and energy on an ineffective response just detratcts from and delays a constructive one.

If Joe Biden's panel comes up with nothing but firearms restrictions, it will have been an utter waste of time; pandering, posturing, and politicking.

And I hope that isn't all that they come up with, but if it is, then it is better to do something than nothing.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

(20-12-2012 12:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'm not advocating for an out and out ban and confiscation. Just like I am not advocating that anyone suspected of experiencing a mental health disorder should be locked away in a psych ward until they are evaluated.

Extreme responses don't help, but no response doesn't do shit either.

I hear ya, Beard, but wasting time and energy on an ineffective response just detratcts from and delays a constructive one.

If Joe Biden's panel comes up with nothing but firearms restrictions, it will have been an utter waste of time; pandering, posturing, and politicking.

You're missing the big picture. If you're a dictator, then you rule by might-makes-right, so you don't have to keep your voters happy because there are no voters. If you're a king, you rule by divine birthright, so you don't have to keep your voters happy because there are no voters.

But if you're an elected official, then EVERYTHING you ever do is about getting more votes in your next election. You MUST keep voters happy because that's your sole reason for existence. Now, pie-in-the-sky optimists like Chas here seem to think that elected officials are supposed to do what's right to provide a better country and a better standard of life for everyone living in it. WRONG. Elected officials only do one thing - garner more votes for the next election. Well, they do other things, but if the other things don't garner more votes, then they do them in secret, off-the-books backroom deals.

And, since voters are (generally speaking) morons, all the elected official has to do is appease the morons. Which, sadly, means that appearing to do something really cool is infinitely more useful to the official than actually doing something useful, except in the rare case where actually doing something useful is also, luckily, the best way to appear to do something useful - usually this is not the case.

In short, Biden will head the panel and, unsurprisingly, the panel will automagically conclude EXACTLY what most voters think is the best conclusion, regardless of whether that conclusion has even a remote chance of actually being useful.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

(20-12-2012 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote: I hear ya, Beard, but wasting time and energy on an ineffective response just detratcts from and delays a constructive one.

If Joe Biden's panel comes up with nothing but firearms restrictions, it will have been an utter waste of time; pandering, posturing, and politicking.

You're missing the big picture. If you're a dictator, then you rule by might-makes-right, so you don't have to keep your voters happy because there are no voters. If you're a king, you rule by divine birthright, so you don't have to keep your voters happy because there are no voters.

But if you're an elected official, then EVERYTHING you ever do is about getting more votes in your next election. You MUST keep voters happy because that's your sole reason for existence. Now, pie-in-the-sky optimists like Chas here seem to think that elected officials are supposed to do what's right to provide a better country and a better standard of life for everyone living in it. WRONG. Elected officials only do one thing - garner more votes for the next election. Well, they do other things, but if the other things don't garner more votes, then they do them in secret, off-the-books backroom deals.

And, since voters are (generally speaking) morons, all the elected official has to do is appease the morons. Which, sadly, means that appearing to do something really cool is infinitely more useful to the official than actually doing something useful, except in the rare case where actually doing something useful is also, luckily, the best way to appear to do something useful - usually this is not the case.

In short, Biden will head the panel and, unsurprisingly, the panel will automagically conclude EXACTLY what most voters think is the best conclusion, regardless of whether that conclusion has even a remote chance of actually being useful.

You unfortunately make a realistic argument.

I'm not a "pie-in-the-sky optimist" - I'm a grumpy, old fart optimist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.